IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i7p924-938.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementing Interventions with Varying Marginal Cost-Effectiveness: An Application in Precision Medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Stuart J. Wright

    (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK)

  • Mike Paulden

    (School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada)

  • Katherine Payne

    (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK)

Abstract

Purpose . A range of barriers may constrain the effective implementation of strategies to deliver precision medicine. If the marginal costs and consequences of precision medicine vary at different levels of implementation, then such variation will have an impact on relative cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to illustrate the importance and quantify the impact of varying marginal costs and benefits on the value of implementation for a case study in precision medicine. Methods . An existing method to calculate the value of implementation was adapted to allow marginal costs and consequences of introducing precision medicine into practice to vary across differing levels of implementation. This illustrative analysis used a case study based on a published decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a 70-gene recurrence score (MammaPrint) for breast cancer. The impact of allowing for varying costs and benefits for the value of the precision medicine and of implementation strategies was illustrated graphically and numerically in both static and dynamic forms. Results . The increasing returns to scale exhibited by introducing this specific example of precision medicine mean that a minimum level of implementation (51%) is required for using the 70-gene recurrence score to be cost-effective at a defined threshold of €20,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The observed variation in net monetary benefit implies that the value of implementation strategies was dependent on the initial and ending levels of implementation in addition to the magnitude of the increase in patients receiving the 70-gene recurrence score. In dynamic models, incremental losses caused by low implementation accrue over time unless implementation is improved. Conclusions . Poor implementation of approaches to deliver precision medicine, identified to be cost-effective using decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis, can have a significant economic impact on health systems. Developing and evaluating the economic impact of strategies to improve the implementation of precision medicine will potentially realize the more cost-effective use of health care budgets.

Suggested Citation

  • Stuart J. Wright & Mike Paulden & Katherine Payne, 2020. "Implementing Interventions with Varying Marginal Cost-Effectiveness: An Application in Precision Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(7), pages 924-938, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:7:p:924-938
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20954391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20954391
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20954391?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Gijs Wetering & Willem Woertman & Eddy Adang, 2012. "Time to incorporate time in cost-effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(3), pages 223-226, June.
    3. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    4. Johannesson, Magnus & Weinstein, Milton C., 1993. "On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 459-467, December.
    5. Andrew R. Willan & Simon Eckermann, 2010. "Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(5), pages 549-561, May.
    6. Bleichrodt, Han & Doctor, Jason & Stolk, Elly, 2005. "A nonparametric elicitation of the equity-efficiency trade-off in cost-utility analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 655-678, July.
    7. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 1992. "Cost effectiveness/utility analyses : Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 279-296, October.
    8. Gijs Wetering & Willem Woertman & Andre Verbeek & Mireille Broeders & Eddy Adang, 2013. "Quantifying short run cost-effectiveness during a gradual implementation process," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 911-918, December.
    9. Adang, Eddy M.M. & Wensing, Michel, 2008. "Economic barriers to implementation of innovations in health care: Is the long run-short run efficiency discrepancy a paradox?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 236-242, December.
    10. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 1993. "Changing the problem to fit the solution: Johannesson and Weinstein's (mis) application of economics to real world problems," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 469-476, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sean P. Gavan & Stuart J. Wright & Fiona Thistlethwaite & Katherine Payne, 2023. "Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 675-692, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Morton, Alec, 2014. "Aversion to health inequalities in healthcare prioritisation: A multicriteria optimisation perspective," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 164-173.
    2. Morton, Alec & Thomas, Ranjeeta & Smith, Peter C., 2016. "Decision rules for allocation of finances to health systems strengthening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 97-108.
    3. Tom L. Drake & Yoel Lubell & Shwe Sin Kyaw & Angela Devine & Myat Phone Kyaw & Nicholas P. J. Day & Frank M. Smithuis & Lisa J. White, 2017. "Geographic Resource Allocation Based on Cost Effectiveness: An Application to Malaria Policy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 299-306, June.
    4. McKenna, Claire & Chalabi, Zaid & Epstein, David & Claxton, Karl, 2010. "Budgetary policies and available actions: A generalisation of decision rules for allocation and research decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 170-181, January.
    5. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 2003. "Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 207-219, May.
    6. Elamin H. Elbasha & Mark L. Messonnier, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis and health care resource allocation: decision rules under variable returns to scale," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 21-35, January.
    7. Lindholm, Lars & Hallgren, C. -G. & Boman, Kurt & Markgren, Kenth & Weinehall, Lars & Ogren, J. -E., 1999. "Cost-effectiveness analysis with defined budget: how to distribute resources for the prevention of cardiovascular disease?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 155-170, August.
    8. Joanne Lord & George Laking & Alastair Fischer, 2006. "Non‐linearity in the cost‐effectiveness frontier," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 565-577, June.
    9. Elamin H. Elbasha, 2005. "Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost‐effectiveness analysis: the expected‐utility, moment‐generating function approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 457-470, May.
    10. Christopher J.L. Murray & David B. Evans & Arnab Acharya & Rob M.P.M. Baltussen, 2000. "Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 235-251, April.
    11. Stinnett, Aaron A. & Paltiel, A. David, 1996. "Mathematical programming for the efficient allocation of health care resources," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 641-653, October.
    12. Karl Claxton & Mike Paulden & Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Anthony J. Culyer, 2011. "Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health‐care technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, January.
    13. Pedram Sendi, 2008. "Bridging the gap between health and non-health investments: moving from cost-effectiveness analysis to a return on investment approach across sectors of economy," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 113-121, June.
    14. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    15. Kirwin, Erin & Meacock, Rachel & Round, Jeff & Sutton, Matt, 2022. "The diagonal approach: A theoretic framework for the economic evaluation of vertical and horizontal interventions in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    16. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2008. "Opportunity analysis of newborn screening programs," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 12(4), pages 259-277, December.
    17. A. Gafni & S. D. Walter & S. Birch & P. Sendi, 2008. "An opportunity cost approach to sample size calculation in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 99-107, January.
    18. Mercy G. Mugo & Peterson J. Muriithi, 2018. "Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Family Planning Provision in Kenya," Journal of African Development, African Finance and Economic Association (AFEA), vol. 20(1), pages 13-22.
    19. Gijs Wetering & Willem Woertman & Andre Verbeek & Mireille Broeders & Eddy Adang, 2013. "Quantifying short run cost-effectiveness during a gradual implementation process," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 911-918, December.
    20. Amiram Gafni & Stephen Walter & Stephen Birch, 2013. "Uncertainty And The Decision Maker: Assessing And Managing The Risk Of Undesirable Outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(11), pages 1287-1294, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:7:p:924-938. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.